Judge: Curtis A. Kin, Case: 21STCV03618, Date: 2022-12-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV03618    Hearing Date: December 6, 2022    Dept: 72

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

Date:               12/6/22 (8:30 AM)                             

Case:              Ashvani Sood et al. v. FCA US, LLC (21STCV03618)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiffs Ashvani Sood and Sharevia Lee’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One is DENIED as MOOT.

Plaintiffs Ashvani Sood and Sharevia Lee move to compel further responses from defendant FCA US, LLC to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, Nos. 1, 8, 11, 12, 17, 19-23, 27, 29-33, 43, and 70-76.

The Court finds that plaintiffs demonstrate good cause for the discovery sought. Based on plaintiffs’ allegations regarding powertrain control module and transmission defects in the subject vehicle (Compl. ¶ 11), plaintiffs are entitled to discovery which is probative of defendant’s knowledge of these defects in 2015 Jeep Grand Cherokee vehicles, including in vehicles other than the subject vehicle, and defendant’s handling of complaints. (Donlen v. Ford Motor Company (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 138, 143-44; Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967, 973-74, 994.)

Any willfulness in violating the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act would entitle plaintiffs to a civil penalty not exceeding two times the amount of actual damages. (Compl. ¶ 127 [allegation that defendant’s failure to comply with Song-Beverly was willful]; Civ. Code § 1794(c); CACI 3244.) A defendant is willful under Civil Code § 1794(c) when the defendant “knew of its legal obligations and intentionally declined to follow them.” (CACI 3244.) Defendant’s knowledge gained from other instances of the defects about which plaintiffs complain may evidence defendant’s knowledge that the powertrain control module and transmission were not repairable and therefore defendant had an obligation to replace or repurchase the vehicle under Civil Code § 1793.2(d)(2).

Defendant’s most recent responses to Request Nos. 1, 8, 12, 27, 29-32, 43, and 72-76 are fully compliant with CCP § 2031.220. Defendant states it complied in full and produced all responsive documents in its possession, custody, or control.

Defendant’s most recent responses to Request Nos. 11, 17, 19-23, 33, 70, and 71 comply with CCP § 2031.230. Defendant stated it conducted a reasonable search and diligent inquiry and that no responsive documents, including emails, exist or have existed.

Plaintiffs argue that defendant did not explain its search term protocols. However, there is no such statutory requirement.

Plaintiffs also move to strike defendant’s objections to the discovery. The Court declines to do so. Defendant does not indicate that it withheld any documents based on objections. 

Plaintiffs argue that defendant did not search certain databases. Defendant listed the databases that it searched where the responsive documents were “most likely to be found.” Defendant is only required to conduct a diligent search and reasonable inquiry in the attempt to comply with document requests. (CCP § 2031.230.) If plaintiffs unearth evidence indicating defendant has not been diligent and reasonable and/or intentionally failed to search certain databases to conceal responsive documents, then plaintiffs may seek any relief to which they believe they are entitled at that time, including a jury instruction for willful suppression of evidence and/or other appropriate sanction(s).

For the foregoing reasons, the motion is DENIED as MOOT.